The War Room Bet Thread V3

[waiguoren]

Do you understand the distinction between "not mentioning any exceptions" and "asserting that there are no exceptions"?

I do. I did not claim that you did the latter.

Is it fair to say that we agree that Trump is in a very weak position politically

No. I think he is a moderate position. If I had to choose "strong" or "weak", I would choose the former.

with very low approval ratings

President Obama's RCP approval rating average on August 28, 2010 was 46.1%.

President Trump's RCP approval rating average on August 28, 2018 is 44.0%.

So Obama's approval rating was "very low" at that time, right?

propped up by a strong economy

To an extent, yes.

that he has nothing to do with

He has something to do with it, but not even half as much as the typical Trump supporter seems to think.

and that the only plausible way he gets to 50% approval is an attack by another nation or a health scare?

No. Tighten up the language and I'll take the bet.

 

[Jack V Savage]

President Obama's RCP approval rating average on August 28, 2010 was 46.1%.

President Trump's RCP approval rating average on August 28, 2018 is 44.0%.

So Obama's approval rating was "very low" at that time, right?

Going by RCP, and assuming your numbers are correct, Obama's approval rating was 210 bps higher than Trump's.

No. Tighten up the language and I'll take the bet.

Why don't you? Surely by now you understand the point. We're not talking about a change in military strategy or a bad patch in an ongoing campaign. Likewise, when I talk about major health scares or assassination attempts, I'm not talking about a cold or some loser on 4Chan popping off.

 

[waiguoren]

Going by RCP, and assuming your numbers are correct, Obama's approval rating was 210 bps higher than Trump's.

This has to be a troll job. I refuse to believe you wrote this in good faith.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This has to be a troll job. I refuse to believe you wrote this in good faith.

I don't get the question, I guess. If you're just asking if I'd apply the same vague term to somewhat different numbers, the answer is "maybe, depends on the context." What was the context that you were thinking of?

 

[waiguoren]

I don't get the question, I guess. If you're just asking if I'd apply the same vague term to somewhat different numbers, the answer is "maybe, depends on the context." What was the context that you were thinking of?

...I'm not sure if I should bother anymore. One last try.

On the same day of their presidencies, President Obama's average approval rating was only very slightly higher than President's Trump's. They differ by only 2.1%. You referred to the latter as "very low", but you seem to be unwilling to apply the same label to President Obama. Why is that?

 

[Jack V Savage]

...I'm not sure if I should bother anymore. One last try.

On the same day of their presidencies, President Obama's average approval rating was only very slightly higher than President's Trump's. They differ by only 2.1%. You referred to the latter as "very low", but you seem to be unwilling to apply the same label to President Obama. Why is that?

Several points I can make here:

1. I don't care if someone calls either "very low." Obama's approval was "very low" at some points in his presidency, IMO.
2. One is higher than the other so it would be perfectly reasonable to call one low and the other very low.
3. I generally look at 538's approval (though for the purposes of our bet, I'm willing to use RCP). It has Trump at 41.4%.
4. What's the context? Why do you constantly refuse to answer direct questions that would facilitate communication? If the point is that Trump is in a strong position in 2020 because he's not far behind Obama at the same point, and Obama won, I disagree (and we can get into it).

 

[Lead]

I thought this one had a chance. Maybe in 20 more posts.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I thought this one had a chance. Maybe in 20 more posts.

It really doesn't have to. If wai really thinks that Trump's approval will rise to that level absent a blip caused by a freak event, it shouldn't be hard to craft a bet around it (because I strongly disagree that that's likely).

 

[SBJJ]

Wai. I will gladly lend you Jacks scalp at the end of the year

 

[waiguoren]

Wai. I will gladly lend you Jacks scalp at the end of the year

I have you as a slight favorite for that one. Good luck.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have you as a slight favorite for that one. Good luck.

Again with this kind of thing, but then it's a lock that within a few weeks, you'll go back to denying being tribalistic.

I offered you a meta bet on that one.

 

[waiguoren]

Again with this kind of thing, but then it's a lock that within a few weeks, you'll go back to denying being tribalistic.

What does this have to do with being tribalistic? I offered my cap, which is that he's a very slight favorite to win. You think my cap is indicative of tribalism?

I deny being tribalistic now, and I believe I will deny it in a few weeks as well.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What does this have to do with being tribalistic? I offered my cap, which is that he's a very slight favorite to win. You think my cap is indicative of tribalism?

I deny being tribalistic now, and I believe I will deny it in a few weeks as well.

The backslapping with people who are overtly partisan (*always* Republican partisans) belies the claim that you're not partisan.

And, yes, I'd expect you to know better than to think that he's likely to win. @SBJJ reasoning doesn't go any deeper than "Republican is president, therefore growth will increase." But if you actually look into the issue, I don't see how you figure that he's likely to win (note that there is unpredictability here so I'm not by any means saying that he *can't* win, but based on public info, there's no reason to expect it).

 

[waiguoren]

The backslapping with people who are overtly partisan (*always* Republican partisans) belies the claim that you're not partisan.

That's funny. Just a few hours ago I "backslapped" with @Limbo Pete for his excellent vocabulary. Would you consider him a "Republican partisan"? I have often praised @Cake4Breakfast and @kpt018 for their ability to resist knee-jerk partisan reactions. Would you say they are "Republican partisans"?

Also, @SBJJ does not strike me as a Republican as much as a free thinker, but I'll let him define his views if he wishes.

But if you actually look into the issue, I don't see how you figure that he's likely to win

I only wrote that I cap him as a slight favorite. To be more specific, I'll say P(SBJJ wins) = 0.55. If GDP growth just repeats what it already did in the first half of the year, he wins.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I only wrote that I cap him as a slight favorite. To be more specific, I'll say P(SBJJ wins) = 0.55. If GDP growth just repeats what it already did in the first half of the year, he wins.

Incorrect. He's betting on an acceleration in H2.

 

[SBJJ]

If full year GDP is over 2.9 I win. Nearly all unbiased economists believe this likely to happen now. Q3 will likely be stronger than Q2 as most tracking shows it over 4%. There is also the issue of inventories being drawn down in Q2 which should lead to a blip up in Q3.

Jack likes to call people partisan/tribalistic to make himself feel better. It’s his go to move

 

[SBJJ]

I’d be happy to also bet Q3 numbers alone.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If full year GDP is over 2.9 I win. Nearly all unbiased economists believe this likely to happen now.

I do not believe that you have seen a sufficient sample of the expectations of "unbiased economists" to make this statement with any reasonable degree of confidence. In fact, I don't believe that you've read any "unbiased economists" on the issue. Not many economists--biased or otherwise--have been projecting H2 or full-year 2018 GDP growth that I've seen.

Q3 will likely be stronger than Q2 as most tracking shows it over 4%. There is also the issue of inventories being drawn down in Q2 which should lead to a blip up in Q3.

We shall see. Given where we currently are, that will determine the outcome.

Jack likes to call people partisan/tribalistic to make himself feel better. It’s his go to move

You have a truly bizarre model of human motivations. It's one reason (one of a few) I'm able to identify you as someone who doesn't read. And I think that @waiguoren would be ashamed to be associated with you if he did not consider you to be in his political tribe.

 

[waiguoren]

Incorrect. He's betting on an acceleration in H2.

According to my calculations and based on the most recent BEA data, GDP grew by approximately 1.585% in the first half of 2018.

BEA says GDP grew by 2.2% annualized in Q1. That's about 0.5455% non-annualized. ([1.022^.25-1]*100 ≈ 0.5455)

BEA says GDP grew by 4.2% annualized in Q2. That's about 1.0339% non-annualized. ([1.042^.25-1]*100 ≈ 1.0339)

Therefore the GDP growth rate for H1 was about [(1.005455*1.010339)-1]* 100% ≈ 1.585%.

If GDP again grows by about 1.585% for the second half of 2018, then GDP will have grown by approximately 3.2% in 2018, and you will lose the bet.

Calculation: (1.00545519865*1.01033856326)^2=1.03195154925

Therefore, it appears that you are betting on a deceleration in GDP growth for H2. @SBJJ is betting on a continuation or a slight slowdown in H1 growth rates.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Therefore, it appears that you are betting on a deceleration in GDP growth for H2. @SBJJ is betting on a continuation or a slight slowdown in H1 growth rates.

Your mistake is looking at sequential quarterly rather than YOY growth. Anyway, my thinking is that there were some tailwinds in H1 that will convert to headwinds in H2, and that the long-term trajectory is below the target. The combination of those two factors makes it unlikely that growth will be above the target (that is, in any period, it's unlikely to be above the target, and H2 will face some challenges that make it likely to be worse than a randomly selected period). So there is going to be some variation around the trajectory, but the odds are in my favor. SBJJ's thinking is just that Daddy is in the WH therefore growth should be faster.

To use a baseball analogy, let's say that there's a player who is a legitimate .280 hitter who hit .320 in the first half of the season and then injured his wrist but not badly enough to sideline him. I'm betting that he'll hit below .320 the rest of the way. Let's ignore general fatigue and the weaker competition in the second half of baseball seasons (following the roster expansions). SBJJ is just a fan of the team the player is on and so thinks he'll hit over .320 the rest of the way.